Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, as this Question is about possible amendments to the Act, is there any possibility of making the fees more realistic? I know that there was a debate on this last week, but is the Minister aware that in areas of London such as Soho the council is allowed to charge hundreds of pounds, and the cost of policing and caring for the licensed premises is thousands of pounds? Council Tax payers are going to bare a very heavy burden. Is there anything that can be done about that?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, those who represent residents will be able to make representations. I do not know whether all local residents associations will fall into that category. I assume that most will. Therefore, they will be able to make representations.
	On the detailed points the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, makes about cumulative impact—and I did not fully understand his point about ambulances—I do not think that it would be wise for me to seek to interpret the guidance at this Dispatch Box. I refer him back to that guidance, and if he has further questions I shall be happy to answer them.

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, will the Minister not accept that one of the problems with his response to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, is that guidance notes cannot change the legal meaning of "public nuisance"?
	As the Act now stands, there is a lack of clarity. One has to wade through the enormous set of guidance notes to have a clue about what is meant. Regarding "vicinity" and those who might make representations, there is a caveat whereby the initial decision on this issue could be subject to a legal challenge in the courts that could put off local authorities and those locally wanting to make representations. Will the Minister not accept that it would have been wise to accept the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, and fought for by noble Lords during the passage of the Bill, and that,
	"unreasonable diminution of living and working amenity and environment of interested parties living in the vicinity of the premises",
	would have made a lot more sense than simply making reference to "public nuisance"?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, as I said in response to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, we have not anticipated that we will be reprogramming any of the money that we have currently programmed to countries in south-east Asia. A number of countries, for example, have put out their response to the tsunami. They have not only said how much they have given in emergency relief but they have reprogrammed current budgets. We have not done that. That decision will not be taken until we see the needs assessment later this month and look again at what we think countries will need.

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, the focus of the London meeting was to help the Palestinian leadership strengthen the institutions of the Palestinian Authority. The meeting is part of a longer-term process of international support for the Palestinians in helping both sides return to the road map. The road map remains the international community's agreed path towards a lasting negotiated settlement to the Israel-Palestine conflict.

Lord Turnberg: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the Government on the initiative yesterday; it is much appreciated. Does the Minister agree with me that at this crucial time it is important to offer, not criticism to either party but support and encouragement to both? At the end of the day it is the Israelis and the Palestinians who have to agree between them. Criticism of either is unlikely to be helpful in that process.

Lord Glentoran: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What representations they have made to the United States State Department, or any other branch of the United States administration, regarding invitations for Mr Martin McGuinness, Mr Gerry Adams or other members of Sinn Fein to the annual White House St Patrick's Day celebrations on 17 March.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, we have a regular dialogue with the United States Administration on a range of issues related to Northern Ireland. During those exchanges, we have made it clear that the decision on who should attend the White House on 17 March is a matter for the US Administration alone.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat a Statement made in another place by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. The Statement is as follows:
	"With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a Statement about the future of the BBC.
	"I will set out for the House the background to the current review of its Royal Charter, and our proposals set out in a Green Paper on its funding, governance and purposes. Published today, its title is A strong BBC, independent of government.
	"Alongside the NHS, the BBC is one of the two great institutions of British national life. For over 80 years, it has sought to represent the highest standards of broadcasting. Its archives are a record of our national collective memory, from the coronation to the 1966 World Cup; from 'Dixon of Dock Green' to 'The Office'.
	"Since the corporation's foundation, its Royal Charter has been reviewed by the Government roughly every 10 years, the last in 1996.
	"Like its predecessors, this review has examined the corporation's scale and scope, its funding and governance. But this one has been unique in the level of public consultation, and in tackling perhaps the greatest challenge that the BBC has ever faced—the challenges in TV technology that will soon result in a wholly digital Britain.
	"The BBC, like any public institution, needs to adapt if is to serve its audiences and keep pace with change. But its values, its global reach, its standards and its editorial independence must be preserved and strengthened; for that is what the British people want. The results of our public consultation and research are very clear.
	"Overwhelmingly, the people like and trust the BBC. They understand and support the principles of public service broadcasting. They want the BBC to have scale. They want it to have the highest standards. They want it to be independent of government, Parliament or any commercial influence, and they want it to listen.
	"But they also have significant criticisms: that the BBC is not responsive enough to their interests; that there has been a decline in quality—particularly in television, a tendency towards copycat programming at the expense of real innovation. Some people worry about the value for money of the licence fee, and particularly those who want, but cannot get, Freeview. And some of the BBC's commercial competitors believe that it has too much freedom to expand into new markets and stifle competition.
	"We have to find a balance between meeting those concerns while ensuring that public service broadcasting leaves a footprint in every medium, a guarantee of quality, impartiality and innovation. That balance is harder to strike as the media change.
	"In 1988, Britain had four television channels. Today, there are more than 400. In a few years, we will become a fully digital nation when the switchover from analogue to digital TV is made. And as technology changes, so do the public's expectations. The challenges facing the BBC are enormous, as it plays a leading role in guiding the nation through this period of change. To do so it needs certainty about its future. So, after closely considering the Select Committee's alternative recommendations in this area, we have decided that the BBC's charter should be renewed for a further 10 years.
	"I should like to turn now to the question of funding. The review looked at the different options for funding the BBC, and consulted the public. Perhaps surprisingly, the licence fee retains a high degree of public support and, although not perfect, we believe it remains the fairest way to fund the BBC. So it will continue throughout the next charter. In the coming months, we will decide on the right level for the fee to take after 2007. But beyond that, we have to take account of the rapid advance in technology and media consumption.
	"So, during the life of the next charter, we will review the case for alternative funding models, particularly subscription, to make a contribution after 2016. And we will review the risk to plurality in public service broadcasting, encompassing Channel 4's longer-term position; whether any public funding, including licence fee income, should be distributed more widely beyond the BBC in order to sustain plurality; and, if so, how any such distribution might take place.
	"The old definition of the BBC's purposes as being to educate, inform and entertain still hold true. But by itself that is no longer enough in a world of ever increasing choice. So we have identified five new purposes for the BBC, which I set out in the Green Paper. In addition, the BBC will play a leading role in the process of switching Britain from analogue to digital television. It will be at the forefront of public information campaigns. It will help to manage SwitchCo, the organisation that will co-ordinate the technical process. And it will help to establish and will fund schemes that help the most vulnerable consumers.
	"Honourable Members will know from their own postbags that there is disquiet that, in some cases, households are expected to pay the fee when they cannot receive the full range of BBC services. That is why we think it is important that the BBC should help to drive the switchover process.
	"I should like now to move to the issue of governance, where we will introduce radical change: a BBC-specific model that gives expression to the values on which the BBC is built.
	"There is widespread consensus that the current model of governance is unsustainable. The governors' dual role as cheerleader and regulator does not sit easily in a public organisation of the size and complexity of the BBC. It lacks clarity and accountability. Licence fee payers need to know who is speaking up for them, and they deserve to know how important decisions are made and what influence they can exert. So the Green Paper sets out the new model which we intend to introduce—one that reflects the public value approach of the current BBC model, but which also draws significantly on Lord Burns' work.
	"The BBC governors, with their dual role of managing the BBC but also holding it to account, will be replaced by two bodies, each with a clearly defined role.
	"A BBC trust will be the custodian of the BBC's purpose, the licence fee and the public interest. An executive board will be accountable to the trust for the delivery of the BBC's services. The functions of the two bodies will be clearly defined, enabling the trust to judge the management's performance clearly and authoritatively.
	"So the trust will have the high-level powers of approval over BBC budgets and strategy. It will have the tools to hold the BBC to account, issuing new service licences for each BBC service, and applying a public value test to proposals for new services.
	"Michael Grade, whose current appointment as chairman of the BBC continues until 2008, will be the first chairman of the trust. The trust will represent the licence fee payer. To do that, it will need to listen to them and to consult them. Ways of doing this might include webcasting trust meetings, publishing audience research or electing local representative councils.
	"Day-to-day management will be carried out by the executive board, which will be strengthened by a significant minority of non-executive members, and whose chair will be appointed by the trust.
	"Over the past months, we have examined closely the changes Michael Grade has made. We have also studied the model proposed by Lord Burns for an external public service broadcasting commission.
	"Our trust model builds in the strongest elements of the BBC's proposals. These include the establishment of a separate governance unit; the introduction of service licences; and the application of public value tests to new services and any major changes to existing ones.
	"The BBC's proposals are a step in the right direction. But as they stand, they fall short of the accountability test because they do not resolve the confusion of the governors' dual role, and depend too much on behavioural rather than structural reform. So the BBC trust incorporates the key recommendation from Lord Burns that there should be clear separation of different responsibilities, to avoid confusion or capture.
	"However, we believe that the Burns proposals for a unitary BBC board, with a government-appointed chair and an external PSB commission, also with a government-appointed chair, would fail to provide sufficient authority, clarity or distance from government. Our proposal makes sure that there is only one clear sovereign body and only one government-appointed chair. That will make the trust a powerful advocate for the public interest, able to safeguard the BBC's independence.
	"But 'strong' does not mean over-mighty, and we will have to ensure that the BBC deals fairly with the wider market. The BBC's competitors have become increasingly concerned about the impact a publicly funded BBC can have on their businesses. Successive governments have allowed the BBC to be, in effect, a desirable market intervention. But we also need it to be constrained when its interests collide with the commercial sector and threaten the choice and quality of programming from other broadcasters. It should not play copycat, or chase ratings for ratings' sake.
	"We do want the corporation to maximise its income from commercial services, but we also want to see a clear link between those services and its public purposes. To achieve this, the BBC will be subject to tough new internal and external processes. Ofcom will be given powers to conduct market impact assessments for proposed new services. Ofcom will retain full Competition Act powers in relation to the BBC, and in addition we will consider giving it a new power of approval over the BBC's internal code on fair trading.
	"Another area of debate is the BBC's use of independent production, the balance between in-house and externally commissioned programmes. I want to ensure that the licence fee truly becomes venture capital for creativity, that it is used to put the finest talent on the air.
	"Twenty-five per cent of its television productions already have to be commissioned from the independent sector, but I believe there is scope to go further. We will consider a range of options for reform in this area, including the BBC's proposals for a new 'window of creative competition' and increases in the existing quotas. Either way, I expect to see substantial progress in this area. The BBC has exclusive access to the licence fee. In return, I want it used to encourage independent productions as well as in-house.
	"For radio, the BBC has adopted a voluntary 10 per cent quota. We will consult on whether that is sufficient.
	"To reflect the whole of the United Kingdom and its different communities, the BBC also needs to make sure that a significant slice of production takes place outside London and it needs to provide a range of specific services for the UK's nations and regions. People should see the full diversity of the United Kingdom and their local community reflected in mainstream as well as in regional broadcasting.
	"In reaching these conclusions, I am immensely grateful to Terry Burns and his panel, to Michael Grade and the BBC, to Ofcom, and most of all to the members of the public who in their thousands made their voices heard. We have endeavoured to take the best of what they have told us.
	"In a changing world, values still endure. In a changing world, trust becomes ever more important in people's lives. So in our changing world this Government will secure a BBC that belongs to its licence payers and embodies the values the British people want. A BBC that promotes citizenship and builds our civil society. A BBC that promotes education and learning. A BBC dedicated to creativity and cultural excellence. A BBC that celebrates our nations, regions and communities. A BBC that brings the world to the United Kingdom and the United Kingdom to the world. A BBC which is strong, independent and securely at the heart of British broadcasting for 10 more years.
	"I commend this Statement and the Green Paper to the House".
	My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement and I welcome at long last the publication of the Green Paper reviewing the BBC's Royal Charter, entitled A Strong BBC, Independent of Government. I should say straightaway that we support entirely both of those sentiments.
	While we welcome the Green Paper and the Statement, our view is that the Minister has not gone far enough. We are concerned that in wanting a strong and vibrant BBC, and in accepting that the BBC faces enormous challenges in the coming years, more should have been done and could be done than is proposed in the Green Paper. In a sense, it touches the edges of what might or could be achieved in relation to charter renewal. I say this while stressing that we very much want to support what the Minister called "this great institution".
	We believe in a strong BBC, but the coming years will present a number of challenges, particularly in relation to technological change. The changes we have seen over the past 10 years have been fundamental to the whole broadcasting arena, and I believe that a similar breadth of change must be envisaged for the coming decade.
	We congratulate the BBC on fighting off all proposals for substantial and immediate change—change that should recognise extremely rapid developments both in technology and in the number of new channels. I want also to stress my belief that charter renewal should be considered within the whole broadcasting arena, because in order to maintain a strong and vibrant BBC the corporation must endure strong and healthy competition.
	The Minister said that the charter should be renewed for a period of 10 years. I know that the BBC would very much welcome that. However, it is strange that when the Government consider other organisations, particularly those in the private sector such as Camelot, a period of seven years has been seen as quite long enough to ensure certainty. We should bear that in mind.
	Ten years is a long time given the pace of change, particularly in relation to digital switchover. The Minister accepts that more households are switching to digital reception every day and that people now choose to spend more of their money on what they want to see and hear. Indeed, with Ofcom proposing the start of digital switchover in 2008 and contemplating the programme being completed by 2012, it is somewhat surprising that the Government are content that the charter should be renewed for 10 years.
	The process of digital switchover raises certain hugely important issues. Historically, commercial public service broadcasters have relied on their privileged access to viewers to maintain high advertising premiums and high levels of investment in public service content. Unlike the BBC, these channels do not enjoy direct public funding. They have to earn their money in the marketplace and, as the digital revolution spreads, so the privileges that have underpinned their historic investment in public service content have been eroded.
	In fact, the strength of the BBC is very much dependent on the viability of these other broadcasters who inhabit the landscape. It is surprising, therefore, that the Government propose to delay a change in funding until what in effect will be 2017. In response to my honourable friend John Whittingdale in another place, the Secretary of State said that the Government would not even begin to consider new ways of funding the BBC until five or six years from now.
	The income of £3 billion from the current licence fee is an enormous sum of money, and one that is increasing given that we expect 2 to 3 million homes to be built over the next decade. That factor should be taken into consideration. An income of over £3 billion, when compared with what all the other broadcasters achieve, is a very large amount. Does not the Minister accept that, given the importance of and need to sustain plurality of public service broadcasting provision, it would be much more courageous now to consider seriously how other public service broadcasting providers might be supported over the coming decade, alongside and together with the funding of the BBC? It is not right to consider charter renewal in isolation.
	Does the Minister accept, in the light of all this, that it is now time to make it absolutely clear on the application form for a licence that the moneys are purely for the BBC? Let us be honest, most people assume that the fee they pay covers the television set and the provision of core services. Many do not appreciate that the licence fee is purely for the funding of the BBC.
	I turn now to questions of standards and public service obligations. We believe that adherence to a strong public service obligation is crucial, and the BBC is under a duty to set high standards. A clear remit to set even higher standards for programming is needed and must be assured. In that case, does the Minister agree that such a clear remit for a stronger public service obligation is now required? It is not enough simply to object to copy-cat programming and ratings chasing.
	In addition, why do the Government reject the powerful recommendation made by the Public Accounts Committee in another place that spending of the licence fee should be open to full scrutiny by the Audit Commission? If the Government are serious about improving accountability and transparency, surely that change should be made straightaway.
	I listened with interest to the Minister's remarks on external regulation. He will be aware that the Conservative Party has stated on a number of occasions that proper sanctions can be enforced only by an external regulator entirely separate from the BBC. Given that, I welcome at long last the clear support expressed by the Government for something that we have been asking for over a long period; that is, a move to correct the system whereby the board of governors has been required to act both as the BBC's external regulator and as the top tier of management.
	The governance of the BBC should be conducted by an independent board possessing the necessary levels of expertise and experience. While we accept and are pleased that the chairman of the BBC, Michael Grade, has gone some way to distance himself from the present governors' role, will the Minister accept that that falls a long way short of having an external regulator for the BBC?
	Will the Minister explain the difference between the proposed independent trustees and the new arrangements for the board of governors that Michael Grade is already putting in place? Surely those so-called independent trustees will still be a part of the BBC and will not be a truly independent body, as recommended by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, in his excellent report.
	We believe that Ofcom should have the power to adjudicate on accuracy and impartiality, as it does for other broadcasters. For example, many in the commercial sector complain that there is no proper channel for dealing with abuses of the dominant position that the BBC currently enjoys, and that there continue to be a number of unfair competition practices. I should say that we know that the director-general is going some way towards correcting some of those practices.
	I welcome the Minister's remarks on the use of independent production. I like the term and the idea that independent production should be supported by moneys from the licence fee and will be seen as venture capital for creativity. We support that, and also support the new initiative for creative competition.
	There is much to commend what the Minister has said. The report gives all of us much to consider in the coming months, and I hope that we will take time to consider carefully all that might be achieved in having a new charter that allows the BBC to retain its strong position as a great institution.

Lord McNally: My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, I welcome the commitment to a strong BBC that is independent of government. I suspect that tucked away in the Statement that has just been delivered, there are a few fundamental differences that will be teased out in the weeks and months ahead.
	I hope that it will damage neither the Secretary of State nor the Minister too much to say that I found the Statement most encouraging. I shall certainly use the peroration on a BBC that promotes citizenship in my speeches in the future about the BBC that we are working for.
	I congratulate the Minister, but will he acknowledge that this battle is only half won? There is some way to go before we have a BBC charter that is "fit for purpose". Will he explain the timetable between the Green Paper and the charter? I welcome the appointment today of a House of Lords Select Committee under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, which has come on stream at just the right moment to do a good job of work.
	Although I have confidence in the Secretary of State, and the Minister, there is a danger of a non-transparent Downing Street role being inserted into the process. What guarantees are there that the infamous Downing Street sofa that was so roundly condemned by the noble Lord, Lord Butler, in his report, will not be put to use in putting together the final part of the BBC's charter?
	I do not share the enthusiasm for a wider role for Ofcom. I hope that the Minister will keep Ofcom to the task that Parliament gave it, which relates to competition. I have no objection to keeping the BBC up to standard on competition, but there have been constant signals from Ofcom that it yearns for a wider role and remit over the BBC. I want the Minister to confirm that the Government will resist that.
	Like the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, I welcome the emphasis on roles for the independents and the regions. However, we need to keep a couple of points clearly in view. The statement that the public like and trust the BBC needs to be spelt out. I liked the Minister reminding us that successive governments have been committed to market intervention. We are not for a free market in broadcasting. For 80 years we have had the magnificent example of a public body that distorts the market massively in the public interest, and with public support. We want that distortion of the market in favour of quality and good public service broadcasting to continue.
	We welcome the point about the exclusive use of the licence fee. I am suspicious of every one of the suggestions for top-slicing, bottom-slicing, or whatever. Unless we keep that unique role for the licence fee it will be undermined.
	Although the points about governance are of interest, we should remember that for 80 years the governors of the BBC have not done a bad job in delivering to Britain high quality public service broadcasting. Let us be certain that what we are putting in its place will be fit for purpose, especially with the experience, which was covered by the report of the noble Lord, Lord Hutton, of systematic and sustained bullying of the BBC by Downing Street. We must ensure that the new system of governance is bully-proof.
	I want to give the Minister time to respond to what I and colleagues have to say—we shall have to work out different time shares. He will have a chance to do so in the 20 minutes of general questioning.
	Only in Britain could a body of such long-term success and world esteem be subject to such sustained attack. If, as the Green Paper indicates, the Government—if re-elected—will be robust in their defence of the BBC as an iron pole of the best of public service broadcasting and in setting standards for itself and others, they can rely on the full support of these Benches.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful for that welcome. The noble Lord, Lord Barnett, asked two questions. He asked, first, about the licence fee and whether I could give an assurance that it would not be used for other than the purposes of the BBC during the 10 years of the charter period. I cannot give that assurance. I thought I had made it clear that I was not giving such an assurance. I said in the Statement and repeated in response to noble Lords on the Opposition Front Benches that we expect the licence fee to make a contribution to the cost of digital switchover. That includes the marketing costs and what I call targeted assistance, and it includes participation in the costs of SwitchCo, the governing body.
	I hope that I also made it clear that the review of the future funding of public service broadcasting which will take place towards the middle of the charter review period will consider the case for plurality, at Channel 4's longer-term position, and at whether any public funding including licence fee income should be distributed more widely beyond the BBC in order to sustain plurality and competition in public service broadcasting. I did not give any assurance that such a change would not take place before the end of the charter review period. I adhere to that position.
	The noble Lord's second question was whether we had agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Birt. I know what the noble Lord, Lord Birt, said only from the newspapers. I have no indication that we agree or disagree with anything in particular that he is reported to have said.

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken. We had thoughtful, even passionate debates about the issue at every stage. The noble Baroness, Lady Morris, began by saying that she was passionately convinced about the worth of rural schools. Amen, my Lords—we are all passionately convinced of the worth of rural schools; we are absolutely at one.
	We have established that there is widespread agreement between us on their importance and that there is support across the House for what has been done in policy and practice across England and Wales to secure what we can. I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for reminding us that this is all about the interests of the children and getting right the balance of those interests. That ethical concern inspired not least the changes brought forward in the amendment. We are grateful for the assiduous way in which the noble Baroness has tried to reconcile some of our concerns and to table an amendment that we can discuss further.
	We have some sympathy with the revised amendment. It identifies one area where we can certainly strengthen guidance and points to other areas. On the latter, I hope I can reassure all noble Lords that not only does very recent guidance, to which the noble Baroness referred, match their concerns; it is better, more appropriate and more effective to have those requirements in guidance rather than pinned on to the Bill, as the amendment seeks. Perhaps I may explain why. There are issues of principle and of practice. We are deliberately moving towards a more light-touch regulatory regime. Throughout the debate on the Bill my noble friend and I have referred many times to why we think that it is important. I believe that we have the House's support on that point. We all want to let schools and authorities get on with what they have to do.
	To that end, while the amendment sets out a list of specific persons to be consulted, we believe that it is more appropriate to keep that in guidance than in legislation, not least where it can be easily amended and extended. The right reverend Prelate just gave us the example that the diocesan authorities have been left out of the list. It is possible to amend the provision in guidance; it would be a much greater and slower task if we had to introduce primary legislation to do so. That is an instance of why we have to be careful of not why but how we do things in legislation.
	We have a robust legislative framework for the requirement on the consideration on closures. Section 29(4) of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 states:
	"Before publishing any proposals under this section, the relevant body shall consult such persons as appear to them to be appropriate; and in discharging their duty under this subsection the relevant body shall have regard to any guidance given from time to time".
	The noble Baroness has been assiduous in checking on the website. I understand some of the difficulties in manoeuvring and negotiating through it. She may have found—it was probably tucked away at the back—the additional specific guidance on consultation that is appended to the guidance for decision makers, which looks at those who must be consulted about statutory proposals. I will certainly give her the full hard copy. Among a long list in paragraph (13), it includes parents of pupils at feeder primary schools and those who live or have children attending a school in the area of an adjoining education authority. The statutory guidance makes it clear that all those who bring forward proposals have to consult parents and teachers.
	We want this provision in guidance because guidance works. As I mentioned on Report, the average number of closures of rural schools in England has been reduced from 30 per year to only 5 per year. In Wales, which has a far greater proportion of rural schools, we are getting parents signed up to the reasons for closures for the reasons outlined by the right reverend Prelate.
	The guidance is working because it is being observed. It does not have the force of statute, but local authorities and decision-makers know that if they ignore it their decisions are much more susceptible to successful legal action. That is a major deterrent. They are not bound by guidance, but they must have an extremely good reason to act otherwise. We have found that local authorities and decision-makers are almost always keen to abide by guidance.
	What the guidance does not do—this is where the noble Baroness has hit on a gap towards which the amendment directs us—is specifically mention parish, borough and district councils. Although I know that many local authorities consult minor authorities—and of course they can make their views known—we are very happy to give an undertaking that we will fill the gap and amend the statutory guidance to include specific consultation of parish, borough and district councils and community councils in Wales.
	Other aspects of the amendment refer to consultation and consideration, which, as the noble Baroness said, is set out in our guidance. We strengthened the statutory guidance in respect of rural primary schools as recently as last October and made reference to the need for careful consideration of transport implications, including welfare and safety; the recurrent cost to LEAs of transporting pupils to schools further away; the quality and availability of transport links; the effect on road traffic congestion; and the environmental costs.
	In relation to proposed new paragraphs (d) and (e), we also insisted that decision-makers must consider the overall and long-term impact on local people and the community of closure of the village school and of the loss of the building as a community facility; and, in paragraph (e), alternatives to closure including the potential for federation with other schools; and the scope for extended schools or children's centres. There is a lot of detail in guidance. That is why this should be dealt with in guidance. It has to be kept under review and bed down. It has been in place for only three or four months and has to be tested in practice.
	The guidance is under constant review. I hope that the noble Baroness will take this in the spirit in which it is meant. We are happy to give a commitment to look again carefully and consider whether other aspects could be strengthened. As I said, we will certainly amend it in relation to the minor authority.
	I have to draw two problem areas to your Lordships' attention. I have to return to Wales because the amendment sweeps up Wales. Education in Wales is a devolved matter. We must think long and hard before imposing any changes on Wales, no matter how benign we think they are, especially when they relate to challenges that are different in terms of educational choice that are more marked in Wales than in England.
	I know that noble Lords would agree that when Parliament passed the Government of Wales Act 1998 devolving functions in relation to education and other matters to the National Assembly, the intention was that the devolved Administration should be able to chart its own course in these matters, to arrange and conduct its affairs in Wales in ways that reflect the needs of its people and communities. This is the essence of the settlement; this is the nature of devolution. It would be against this principle for us to legislate in such a detailed manner, here at Westminster, for the people of Wales. That would be the effect of the amendment: it would override regulations and guidance made and issued in Cardiff. I shall not rehearse my comments about Wales and why it was different, because that stands on the record in detail.
	I have to say that the amendment is seriously flawed in several respects. The right reverend Prelate drew attention to one of these. I shall point out a few more problems that would be created if it were incorporated. First, Section 29 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 deals with closures, so the amendment should relate to the provisions of that section.
	Secondly, and more seriously, it is not clear on whom the duty is placed to consult and consider the various implications. Is it placed on those bringing forward the proposals or on the local decision maker? That ambiguity could cause serious difficulty.
	Thirdly, another area of potential confusion is over the term "full" which adds nothing to the concept of consultation, but which might lead to extremely lively arguments about whether there has indeed been "full consultation". It is different from the simple reference to "consultation" used elsewhere in school organisation legislation.
	Finally, any such changes to legislation would have to involve transitional arrangements so that proposals that had been properly consulted on and considered under current legislation would not have to start again under the new arrangements.
	I hope that I have stressed the positive spirit in which we have received this debate at various stages of the Bill. We are sympathetic to all the concerns raised. We have addressed them in policy and in practice. I hope, however, that what I have proposed meets with the goodwill of the House and that it will also take into consideration the difficulties with which the amendment will present us. The noble Baroness has been a most assiduous champion, but I hope that she will now feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, with Amendment No. 4 we return to the emotive and sensitive issue of the closure of special schools. We discussed this issue at considerable length in Committee and on Report. The debate showed that there is widespread support for the work undertaken by such schools and they are valued and held in regard by parents and pupils alike. I pay tribute to the outstanding, and often challenging, work undertaken by many dedicated professionals who work in such schools. Without such individuals and their skills and commitment, it would not be possible for any of these schools to exist.
	Throughout the stages of the Bill, we have stressed that the most important factor in the debate is the education and welfare of these young people. None of us disagree with that. We cannot afford to get this issue wrong. Despite the support in Committee on this issue, we still have serious reservations about the Government's existing policy. We feel that it could be flawed. There is a danger that the policy of inclusion has gone too far and too fast. We on these Benches want to ensure that children with disabilities or learning problems are not suffering educationally from that policy. We believe that every child deserves to be treated in the most appropriate learning environment, whatever that might be, and should expect it.
	There is concern because in 1983 there were 1,562 special schools in England but that figure has deceased by more than 400 in the past few years. Yet the number of children with the most severe needs in mainstream schools has gone up by 49 per cent in the past decade. I am sure that noble Lords are aware that about a quarter of pupils will suffer from some form of special needs—whether a passing behavioural problem or severe permanent disability—during the course of their schooling. Teachers in mainstream schools are often finding it difficult to cope with an increasing number of pupils with special needs.
	We are under no illusion about the sensitivity of this question, but we all have an obligation to do everything we possibly can to make certain that children with special needs receive the best possible care and education. However, it must be realised that some children with very severe conditions will never be able to be incorporated in mainstream schools and that that should not be attempted. That is why we must protect the variety of special schools and the excellent work that they do.
	I thank the Minister for his contribution to the debate. As he said several times, it is his day job. I am sure that he will have something to say a little later. He has brought clarity to a difficult area.
	There is some way to go before we are content to let this issue pass. That is why we restructured our amendment after the last debate. Many schools are multi-authority. As we heard in the last debate, many schools are multi-authority and a local authority could close a school serving several local authorities. That would deprive those local authorities which could be short of placements. We are also concerned about the consultation of parents when children come to such schools from a wide area. I have recent experience of that: my own authority did not consult widely enough and did not consult all the parents of pupils in one of its schools.
	So, we should like serious consideration to be given to a relatively mild amendment, which provides that, before any potential closure of special a school takes place, all local authorities that send children to that school should be involved and consulted and all the parents should be involved in that consultation.
	On Report I said that I was in the middle of a difficult problem relating to the consultation of parents. In fact, I spent much of this morning on that. The parents at these schools receive tremendous support from the schools, but they have often had to fight to get what they have. A mistake in our system is that many of these parents feel that they have to fight and fight again to get the school they want for their child. Somehow we must get over that. I have been trying to wrestle with that this morning, so I shall be interested to hear what the Minister says. Somehow we have got the matter slightly wrong. We do not put parents high enough on the agenda. That is why I tabled the amendment.
	Even if the amendment is not technically correctly, I hope that the Government will accept that we should involve the parents and all the local authorities, and that we should be more reluctant than we have been to go down the road of closing special schools. Provision and needs change, but I see no necessity to reduce the number of special schools even if some of the requirements are different. So, I hope that the House will accept the amendment. I beg to move.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, these Benches would like to support the Conservatives on this amendment. We had a number of reservations about earlier amendments that they put forward because we felt they placed too much emphasis on referring closures to the Secretary of State. We were unhappy with that. The new amendment, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, said, is a very mild amendment, merely asks that any closure should be discussed with all parents and all local authorities who send pupils to that school.
	We argue that that is merely good practice and that we would expect any proposed closure to be discussed with those two partners. So the amendment is really only a prompt for good practice. I have no doubt whatever that, as with the previous amendment, the Minister will tell us that we have no need to have this prompt in the Bill because the provision is in already guidance and that the guidance is adequate and more flexible.
	The amendment is sufficiently broad in asking for all parents of children registered at the school and all local authorities involved with sending pupils to the school to be consulted. It does not need any extra flexibility.
	The case for having the prompt on the face of the Bill is, first, that not all local authorities adhere to good practice. When local authorities' budgets are being squeezed as much as they are, many local authorities are only too anxious to find economies where they can.
	We all know that providing facilities for those with special educational needs, particularly for those with both physical and learning difficulties, can be extremely expensive. Some authorities look at the money they spend on special schools and at the amount spent on each pupil and say, "Surely, we can find economies here?". Sometimes they can find economies, and sometimes that is right.
	These Benches supported the Government throughout the debates on the Special Educational Needs and Disabilities Bill on their inclusion agenda because we agree that, by and large, where possible it is better to include children within daily school routines rather than to put them in special schools.
	There are some occasions when special schools are necessary. The noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, sits behind me. She uses the term "fragile" children. These children may not have major disabilities but they cannot cope with the rough and tumble of an ordinary school environment. They are not the only ones. There are some children whose disabilities are so great that they need a special school.
	The Government have never really provided the money necessary to carry out that inclusion agenda. So one sympathises with local authorities when they want to close these facilities, but nevertheless it is necessary that they should carry out a very careful consultation and analysis of whether they really should keep the facility open.
	Secondly, it is also true that local authorities which run special schools do not always recognise that other local authorities are involved. Many special schools have been closed. The schools are often run for a group of local authorities. Yet when such decisions are made, it is a matter for one local authority's budget. Therefore, they forget that others are involved. We feel this prompt on the face of the Bill is worth while and we therefore support the Conservatives on the amendment.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I am sometimes advised by my noble friends behind me not to waste too much time on days like today trying to persuade the House, because sometimes it feels as if people have already made up their mind before we have had a debate and because the audience for the debates is perhaps wider than just the Chamber. I do not take their advice of course, because I know that noble Lords listen attentively to every word that we say and are persuaded by the debate rather than by preconceptions.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, signalled, I agree with him that it is the responsibility of government, of local education authorities and schools constantly to strive to reduce bureaucracy and any cost that does not help to attain better outcomes for children. I do not agree that putting another bureaucratic burden on the Secretary of State to produce another report for Parliament would do anything whatever apart from increase costs.
	I yet again make clear the measures that the department has taken to monitor, challenge and reduce the burden of bureaucracy. Section 38 of the Education Act 2002 already places a duty on the Secretary of State to have regard to the desirability of avoiding the sending of excessive material to governing bodies or to head teachers and the imposition of excessive administrative burdens on governing bodies or head teachers. It is already in statute. By way of illustration, the department has now stopped "the batch"—the automatic mailing of a small mountain of paper to schools—and replaced it with an online system.
	Furthermore, we have put in place a sequence of measures constantly to challenge the tendency of any organisation, perhaps including the Conservative Party, to move towards the generation of bureaucracy almost by nature of its existence. The implementation review unit, which is a group of people outside the department, looks at policies. It has a serious work programme to challenge whether some functions or actions are necessary. It has already had a significant impact, and it has identified means of delivering the kind of progress that we expect.
	In addition, we have established a panel of senior officials which must assess and authorise any policy that impacts on 10 or more schools. We have established also a star chamber of senior DfES officials, the QCA, Ofsted, the TTA, the LGA, the Audit Commission and two head teachers. All requests made by the department for information from schools and local authorities require the prior approval of the star chamber. We cannot ask for information unless that body, which is much wider than the department, agrees that it is desirable and necessary to do so.
	The implementation review unit has the task of overseeing the implementation of the 2003 Cabinet Office report, Making a Difference: Reducing School Paperwork. It identified 125 actions to reduce burdens; 97 have been completed and the rest are on target to be completed.
	We have also included in this Bill a number of changes to reduce the burden of Ofsted inspection. The Bill sits on the platform of a new relationship with schools, which is fundamentally about giving space to schools, freeing them from burdens, unnecessary controls and bureaucracy, and giving them the power and resources and do the job of raising attainment. The whole Bill is fundamentally about allowing them to focus their resources on getting real value rather than producing paper.
	The noble Lord, Lord Dearing, said that there should be a ministerial champion. He is right. There is one. It could not be higher and more powerful. She is called the Secretary of State for Education. She has explicit responsibility for reducing bureaucracy. The Secretary of State takes a wide view of burdens—it is not just a question of looking at what the department does, but also at what local authorities might do.
	Could Ofsted do more? In a sense, of course, the whole Bill—or parts of the Bill—is about reducing the burden of Ofsted on schools while keeping the benefits. I am glad that there is a consensus around the House that that is right and proper. That is where we are going.
	Perhaps the HMCI could play a role in keeping the Secretary of State informed about this wider view of the burdens. In practice, the thematic studies that HMCI undertakes look at those things, and it is open to us to ask HMCI to carry out a specific thematic study of burdens on schools when we think that is necessary and appropriate. We will bear that in mind.
	I do not think that now is the time to do that, however, because we already have such a study underway, looking at the impact of the new relationship on schools in reducing burdens upon them. The National Foundation for Educational Research is to make an independent evaluation of the new relationship with schools trials, including the effectiveness with which it reduced bureaucracy for schools. It will report in July 2005. Let us not have another review set on top of another review. We would be barking if we behaved in that way.
	We agree with the objective. We agree that one needs to be relentless and to have senior political leadership to achieve it, and involvement from those who suffer from bureaucracy as well as those who believe that their little measure is not too bad.
	I will not go into detail about why the amendment is technically flawed. I do not think that will necessarily persuade the House one way or the other. I hope that the House accepts that we are committed to this objective, however. We have a range of strong measures in place, the statutory obligation to reduce bureaucracy and some powerful processes. We are seeing signs of early and significant success in this respect.
	I hope that that has been helpful to the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, and that he does not feel minded to press his amendment to a Division.

Lord Dearing: My Lords, I welcome that indication that HMI might be invited to undertake a thematic review. In my view, that is the right way to go about it. Yes, there is a massive problem. There needs to be action. This approach, however, looks a bit bureaucratic. I much prefer the independent thematic review by the inspector.

The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, I apologise for not being in my place at the start of the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, in support of her amendment. I am afraid that my agnostic hesitation about Amendment No. 3 now gives way to a deeper scepticism about this amendment. That is not born out of a sense of looking at this from an ivory tower, but from experience as serving both as the chair of governors of a school and, shall we say, serving as a parent of children in other schools at the time when the legislation specifying a meeting was brought in. I hasten to add that those are two different kinds of service.
	This is not the time to be anecdotal, rather I shall make a general point. We are facing the need to find new ways of being a society that is just, sustainable and participatory. The parents' meeting is one example of that simply not working. I acknowledge the pressure to keep it, but I should like a little more detail about where that pressure is coming from. I am facing a profound disaffection with them. We need to find other ways of achieving our aims. Indeed, we may have to debate how to find people to serve on school governing bodies. I hear stories that parents do not attend annual meetings because they are scared of being dragooned into serving as school governors. That shows the profound scepticism that needs to balance well-intentioned amendments.
	Because something does not work, it does mean that one should persist in doing it. I am sufficiently sceptical to oppose this amendment.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I shall not speak for excessively long as it is probably one of those afternoons.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, is right that there is a strong measure of agreement on the objective. The debate is more about the detail and how to get there.
	We have spoken at length about the importance of involving parents in their children's education for very good reasons. We have discussed schools behaving to parents as if their involvement in their child's education fundamentally matters and seeing them as partners rather than problems and best left out of the school. We have talked about the importance of parents feeling that they are active stakeholders in the governance, values and leadership of schools. We have referred to opportunities and said that the school must consult, inform, listen, govern and manage its corporate affairs in partnership with parents.
	There is no debate between us on what the future should be, or about how schools behave at present. The debate is how to do it, and I am slightly hamstrung in that I cannot outline the conclusion of all the government work that we talked about previously.
	Let me make it clear that we do not think that schools will fulfil their duties to parents just by holding an annual meeting. We all know that if schools behave only in that way, they are not listening to us or understanding the shift that this House wants.
	The Education Select Committee strongly recommended in 1999 that the annual parents meeting should be abolished and that processes should be put in place to ensure that the school engaged much more creatively in the variety of ways that I described, rather than just having an annual meeting with its parents.
	Levers are in place in the Bill and elsewhere to ensure that that happens without having a statutory obligation to hold an annual meeting. The anxiety of the Liberal Democrats and others at heart is that if we get away with not having a statutory obligation, we may throw everything away and have nothing in its place to ensure that parents are treated seriously.
	I shall summarise a number of issues. First, as my noble friend the noble Lord Hunt said, the importance of parents will be attached to Ofsted inspections. I shall not second guess what Ofsted will do about schools that do not relate well to, communicate with, consult, listen to or are influenced by parents, but it will consider such issues. That is on the inspection agenda and we know how powerful that lever is.
	Secondly, the school improvement partner will be a lever for change and will discuss with schools how they relate to parents. Thirdly, there is a new statutory complaints procedure. Fourthly, there are procedures through local authorities and their leadership in working with schools and partnership arrangements at local level.
	I shall go further in signalling to the House that these are not mere words. In response to the concerns of the House we intend to amend the regulations in force under Section 21 of the Education Act 2002 which deals with the roles and responsibilities of school governing bodies. I propose to add to the regulations a specific reference to the role of parents in the school. I cannot put the final wording of that before the House but it is likely to be something like, "We believe that the duty of the governing body should be to have regard to the views of parents". It will be in that territory. The school will have a statutory obligation that is put into force through regulation.
	For a school to respond properly to the term, "have regard to the views of parents", it is self-evident that it will have to then think about the processes by which it engages with parents. Are there processes in place so that they can listen to, consult, inform, allow for dialogue with or involvement in the governance, thereby affirming the importance of the parent in the child's education? What are the schools doing in those respects?
	I commit that we shall amend regulations to put such a duty on governing bodies. Off that will hang the sort of reviews that we discussed, which will then be inspected by Ofsted every three years or less when it comes to look at what is happening in practice.
	In response to debates in the House, we are moving significantly to ensure that there is a shift. That is better than doing what the amendment suggests, which would leave the annual parents meeting in place and allow those in sleepy hollows who think that staying there and doing nothing else complies with their obligation. We shall remove that and put in its place through regulation a much wider challenge to governing bodies that will be respected by Ofsted.
	I hope that that is helpful to the Opposition and all who have spoken in the debate.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 12, which is grouped with this.
	The purpose of the two amendments is to ensure that all teachers, including those in academies and CTCs are to be registered and regulated by the General Teaching Council in line with other teachers in the maintained sector. The amendments are similar to those tabled on Report, apart from removing the reference to pupil referral units, because we listened to the Minister when he said they were not necessary.
	Under Section 134 of the Education Act 2002 the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales may by regulation provide that a specified activity may be carried out in an LEA-maintained school or a non-maintained special school by a qualified teacher only when that teacher is fully registered with the General Teaching Council for England or for Wales. A trainee teacher may undertake a specified course of training leading to qualified teacher status only if he or she is provisionally registered with the GTC. In addition provisional registration may be required of unqualified teachers undertaking specified work in schools.
	The regulations do not apply to teachers working in schools such as academies, which are legally defined as independent and often referred to by the Government as independent state schools. I believe that professional registration is a vital safeguard for pupils and the public. The procedures for regulating teachers need to be transparent and open for scrutiny. To operate effectively teachers must have the trust and respect of pupils, parents and society as a whole. Public confidence in the system for regulating teachers is a prerequisite.
	That was the guiding principle behind the creation of the General Teaching Council in 2001, putting teachers on a par with doctors and lawyers in having a self-regulatory body. As I mentioned on Report, at its January council meeting the members of the GTC for England expressed grave concern that currently the Government do not plan to bring teachers covered by my amendment within the scope of professional regulation. Stephen Twigg has offered to review the matter if it becomes "a significant issue".
	Organisations representing parents, governors, diocesan authorities and the teaching, head teacher and lecturer unions jointly signed a letter to the schools Minister urging him to bring teachers in academies into the scope of professional regulations. I have rarely seen an amendment supported by so many reputable organisations led by the NUT and the General Teaching Council.
	In response to the GTC the schools Minister argued that many academies may require their teachers to register and that individual teachers may choose to register, even if not required to do so. In his response to the amendment tabled on Report, the Minister said something very similar. He also argued that,
	"Children who attend academies should be taught by staff with at least the same level of qualifications as those who do not. That is precisely why the funding agreements between the Secretary of State and academies set requirements as to the qualifications and health standards of the teachers they employ".—[Official Report, 24/2/05; col. 1454.]
	Funding agreements with private hospitals that carry out operations for the NHS may well also set standards, but they do not allow doctors to opt out of GMC registration. The GTC has worked very hard in developing its regulatory function to set standards for the whole profession, akin to that of, say, the Law Society and the General Medical Council. Every solicitor, whether in private practice, in industry or in the public sector, is subject to the same statutory regulatory system of standards. It would not be suggested that that should apply selectively by reference to who happened to be the employer of such a solicitor. None of your Lordships would like to be treated by a doctor who is not registered with the General Medical Council. As we speak, all social workers are also registering or they will not be allowed to work. I really wonder whether the Government were serious when they set up the GTC if they are not now prepared to support it.
	The GTC regulatory role is not simply one of disciplining teachers. Discipline is a response to a fault and that is a matter for the employer at the time when a teacher does something wrong. The GTC regulates by deciding whether, in consequence of conduct or lack of competence, a teacher is fit to continue working as a teacher in a state school. During the debate, the Minister also said,
	"The GTCE register is, however, only one of the available means of checking the standards of a teacher's past performance".—[Official Report, 25/2/05; col. 1454.]
	I really must ask him why he supports multiple processes to achieve the same object. The GTC regulatory function is not to provide a means of checking the standards of a teacher's past performance—that is Ofsted's job—but it is to consider whether a teacher should continue to have the essential benefit of registration for the future. The issue of registration leads to a number of unhelpful anomalies.
	So questions arise. Does a newly qualified teacher, working in an academy, need to be registered with the GTC while undertaking induction? Does a teacher undergoing induction in an academy have a right of appeal to the GTC if he or she is deemed to have failed? If, following an appeal, the GTC judges that a teacher should not pass the induction, is that teacher able to continue to work at the academy?
	The fact that there is no obligation to register raises all kinds of anomalies and questions and certainly indicates a lack of confidence and support for the General Teaching Council. The supporting organisations were dismayed by the Government's attitude to this amendment on Report. The GTC and its partners want to see a consistent approach to registration so that teachers moving between schools—maintained schools, the academies and the CTCs—do not slip out of the net of professional regulation, which, in the light of the Children Act 2004, is even more important than it was before. I beg to move.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, as we know from previous discussions on various parts of the Bill, academies are registered independent schools. Like all independent schools, they are not bound by the legislative framework that applies to maintained schools. Instead they have their own legislative framework, which includes inspection by Ofsted to obtain registration, which ensures a high standard of professionalism and propriety within the independent sector.
	Seeking to bring academies back into all the regulatory constraints, burdens and bureaucracy of the maintained sector is, as we have said previously, to fetter a crucial experiment before it has had the chance and freedom to demonstrate whether it can succeed where so many others have failed before: that is, in turning around some of the most seriously failing schools in our society, which, as a consequence, has meant that very many children have suffered. Therefore, for the reasons that I have given now and before, we do not believe that it is right to change in this respect.
	The existence of legally independent schools within the state sector requires the right balance to be struck between safeguards in the form of conditions set by central Government and the freedoms from red tape needed to tackle deep-seated problems of deprivation and underachievement. The Government believe that they have struck the right balance and do not believe that there are the risks or harm that the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley is right to probe.
	I shall try to illustrate that point. Paragraph 17 of the model funding agreement between the Secretary of State and an academy reads:
	"The Academy Trust shall employ as teachers persons who meet the health standards set out in the Education (Health Standards) (England) Regulations 2003 and who are also qualified teachers within the meaning of the Education (School Teachers' Qualifications) (England) Regulations 2003".
	Not only does that require academies to employ as teachers only persons with qualified teacher status, but it also backs up that requirement with a very powerful enforcement mechanism, in the form of the contractual agreement, which was mentioned earlier, and the sanctions that are embedded in that.
	On Report, the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, described registration with the GTCE as "probably the best" mechanism that we have for ensuring the quality of a member of the teaching staff. Reflecting on that, earlier this week my officials took the trouble to seek the advice of a number of head teachers of maintained schools about what happens in the real world and how they would assure themselves of the suitability and competence of a prospective member of staff. That has considerable relevance to this debate.
	Head teachers confirm, as one might expect, that they would insist on the usual Criminal Records Bureau check. They would also insist on checking List 99, which has sometimes loosely been called the register of barred teachers who are found, as a result of disciplinary action, to be unsuitable to have care of children; for example, because they have committed child abuse of one dreadful form or another. That is how head teachers behave.
	They were then asked how they would verify a candidate's professional competence as a teacher. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, implied that the primary source of that information would be the GTCE, a source of information that would not be open to the head of an academy. But that is not what the heads of maintained schools told us. In every case, they said they would rely first and foremost on the reference they would seek from a candidate's previous employer.
	That is for good reason. A teacher would normally be referred to the GTCE on competence grounds only as a result of having already been disciplined by their employer. That would catch only a very small proportion of cases that would be seen as warranting a referral to the GTCE. Therefore, a head is utterly sensible not to have multiple sources but to go to the reference from the previous school or schools and to ask them. It would capture what would have been registered with the GTCE if the teacher was so registered, but, more importantly, would also capture the far wider range of circumstances where aspects of that teacher's behaviour might be germane to an honest reference on whether they were suitable. Heads are not daft in seeing the reference, rather than the GTCE, as their source of information.
	I could buttress that by indicating, for example, that on List 99 there are some 3,000-plus teachers registered. Since June 2001 the GTCE has issued only two prohibition orders on the grounds of incompetence. I am not having a poke at the GTCE, but we must not kid ourselves that this is the central way in which a head—whether of an academy or not—validates whether they should employ someone.
	The GTCE has a function, a role, but the risks of not forcing academies to say that everybody must be with the GTCE have been talked up. Some trust governing bodies do so, but the risks are not there, for the reasons I have said.
	The Criminal Records Bureau, List 99 and the reference cover all these issues. There is no need to add additional burdens. For fundamental reasons, we should minimise the burdens on academies, otherwise they will not have the scope to deliver the improvement that we need of them.
	I hope that that has been helpful, if not totally comforting to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, for what I heard as an important probing amendment. The noble Lord is seeking to get on to the record some clarification about the detail of these mechanisms. I will do my best to be as helpful as I can. If there are further points of detail, I will seek to buttress it with further correspondence—copied, of course, to both opposition parties—if that would be helpful.
	I should explain that under the new system of three year budgets, initial allocations of the dedicated schools grant will be based primarily on estimates of future pupil numbers rather than actual data. Those estimates will be used to determine a unit of resource per pupil for each authority, which will then be guaranteed. There will then come a point, of course, when allocations will be finalised based on actual data. I accept entirely the need to consult local authorities at that point to ensure that the underlying data are accurate. That would, for example, parallel the existing system for the local government finance settlement as a whole, under which a provisional settlement is issued for consultation and that is then followed by a final settlement. I am happy to give the House an undertaking that this kind of consultation will take place.
	I do not think that it is necessary to put on the face of primary legislation a requirement to consult, because it is in everybody's interest that such consultation takes place. If there were to be a mistake in the underlying data then it is in the Government's interest, as well as in the authorities' interest, to be alerted to that as soon as possible. These are, however, broad framework powers and including detail about exactly how and when consultation should take place would be unnecessarily prescriptive and could get things wrong.
	I fully sympathise with the underlying purpose of the amendment but, for the reasons I have Explained, it is not necessary to have this requirement on the face of primary legislation. I should also add that, for various technical reasons, the amendment would not achieve its intended effect. I also understand the desire of the noble Lord to see full consultation on the distribution formula as well as on the data underlying the distribution. Of course, any such consultation would in practice have to take place well before allocations were issued to authorities rather than after—as implied by the amendment.
	We have made clear that we do not intend to make any significant changes to the existing SFSS formula in the short term. There will be some minor technical changes, and we will consult all interested parties on those in due course, just as we have in recent years. If, in the future, we were proposing to make more fundamental changes to the formula, we would again consult interested parties fully on those. Again, however, it does not make sense to tie such consultations to the determination of the authorities' schools' budget, because, as I have said, the formula will have to be determined well before the DSG is allocated. Nor will there necessarily need to be a consultation every year, since allocations will cover more than one year at a time.
	As I have said, I do not think it is necessary to have such a requirement on the face of the Bill. I hope that what I have said is helpful. I shall be happy to amplify anything that is not clear and I hope that I have set, at least partly, the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, at rest.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, This short order amends Article 11(1A) of the Electoral Law (Northern Ireland) Act 1962 to change the date of the local elections in Northern Ireland from the third Wednesday in May to the first Thursday in May, on a permanent basis. If this measure is accepted, it will mean that the Northern Ireland local elections due on Wednesday, 18 May 2005 will now take place on Thursday, 5 May.
	This measure is a purely administrative one and simply brings local election dates in Northern Ireland into line with the rest of the United Kingdom. It has been discussed in advance with the chief electoral officer and the Electoral Commission and has the broad support of parties in Northern Ireland. The order is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. It is being made by the Secretary of State in exercise of the powers conferred on him by Section 84(1) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.
	I commend the Order to the House. I beg to move.
	Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 20 January be approved [7th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton.)

Lord Smith of Clifton: rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion, at end to insert "but this House regrets that Her Majesty's Government did not take full account of the concerns expressed by the Electoral Commission about polling for more than one election using different voting systems taking place on the same say."

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I would like to thank noble Lords who have spoken. I begin with the last point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Shutt. My understanding of the terms of reference on regulatory impact assessment does not tally with his. I do not think that a regulatory impact assessment would achieve what he believes what he seeks, but I would like to clarify that in writing.
	On the other point, based on my understanding of electoral law—I will confirm in writing whether I am correct—it would be unwise for me to offer an opinion from the Dispatch Box on whether particular ballot papers are accepted as valid because the procedure followed to determine that is enshrined in law.
	The noble Lord, Lord Shutt, has such long experience of elections that he will understand my hesitation in trespassing into that area. I am sure that the point that he raised will be borne in mind when those judgments are made properly by the right person in the right place.
	I shall clarify one point. This has nothing to do with a general election; it is an administrative move to bring Northern Ireland permanently into line with the rest of the UK. If a general election were to be called for 5 May, there would be practical difficulties and financial implications in running two elections within 13 days of each other—a point which noble Lords will recognise could lead to a different form of confusion than the one they appear to fear.
	It would also place a heavy financial burden on the resources of the Northern Ireland parties if there were two separate elections, and a great strain on the machinery. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, that there was not formal consultation. However, we consulted with Northern Ireland parties, a number of which have been actively lobbying Ministers to move the date of the local elections.
	The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, made it clear that he was aware of that point. It was discussed in advance with the chief electoral officer in the Electoral Commission, who supported the measure.
	The noble Lord, Lord Smith, and the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, referred to previous experience and the need to ensure that previous problems did not recur. Since the combined poll in 2001 the number of available polling stations has increased by nearly 25 per cent; and proper training is to be provided for the staff who work in them. That is being carefully planned and thought through and I hope that this will allay some of the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Smith.
	In addition, the Electoral Commission will be running a high profile publicity campaign telling electors about different voting systems were there to be a combined poll.
	I hope that I have allayed some of the fears of the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, and that with those assurances and the promise of a letter confirming whether my reply to the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, was correct in every detail, he will not press his amendment.

Lord Laird: My Lords, I thank the Minister for outlining the order. We have reached a turning point in Northern Ireland's political process and if the situation is not urgently addressed, the great momentum for democratic government that the signing of the Belfast agreement epitomised may be lost.
	We have heard such rhetoric before. The two governments, however, are at a fork in the road where they must now take the necessary decisions and painful steps to ensure that the integrity of the process is not irreparably damaged. The vacuum at the heart of the process is as a direct result of the actions of one political party and the two governments' refusal to treat it in accordance with democratic standards. I am, of course, speaking of Sinn Fein. The Government must now decide, finally, what measures they will bring to bear on Sinn Fein to ensure the end to the duality of its paramilitary/political existence that has strangled the atmosphere for peaceful coexistence over the past six years.
	That transition period is well and truly over. The crux of the matter is that the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland expect a level playing field in political life. They expect parties to be treated equally, but certainly do not expect parties that are up to their necks in criminality and brutal murder to be given a set of rules to play because of their special needs.
	The recent sickening murder of Robert McCartney was reminiscent of the acts of savagery carried out by the Shankill butchers in the 1970s. Gerry Adams informs us that Mr McCartney's murderers will face IRA expulsion. The Secretary of State, Paul Murphy, announced yesterday that that was not good enough. Perhaps Sinn Fein will heed his advice and hand them over to the police. However, I doubt it. Today, Mr Adams's colleagues in Belfast City Council would not support a motion calling on the public to go forward with information to the police.
	My colleagues and I have been calling for the exclusion of Sinn Fein from any prospective executive should the Government recall the Assembly not because we do not want a political process that includes republicans to succeed. Our conduct to date indicates the exact opposite. We have called for their exclusion simply because it is untenable for the Government to limp on through the elections, dragging the republican movement behind it, in the hope that the same paradoxical political fix between the DUP and Sinn Fein that failed last Christmas will work again next autumn. The premise of such thinking can only be that any short-term formula can acceptably be enforced on the people of Northern Ireland to keep the Belfast agreement alive and Sinn Fein included. This will not work.
	It strikes me as extremely ironic when I hear people in Britain talk about the continuing intolerance of the two communities in Northern Ireland. Yet the two Governments have repeatedly asked the people in Northern Ireland to tolerate a political formula that they would never dream of accepting themselves, never mind imposing on the people of Great Britain or the Republic of Ireland. Sharing power with a party that robs banks, murders people, runs international crime syndicates and rules its own community through intimidation is not an acceptable option for the democratic population of Northern Ireland.
	Last week the Prime Minister said that:
	"The overwhelming view now in the whole of the island of Ireland, north and south, is there cannot be a place for Sinn Fein in an inclusive government in Northern Ireland unless there is a complete end to all forms of paramilitary activity and criminality by the IRA".
	This has been the overwhelming view of the vast majority of people, north and south, since the beginning of the process. In response to a question from my colleague, the honourable Member for South Antrim, during Prime Minister's Questions last Wednesday, the Prime Minister said:
	"Unified pressure from north and south is now necessary to ensure that we either manage to get a way forward involving all political parties, or find a different way forward".—[Official Report, Commons, 23/2/05; col. 307.]
	Can the Government enlighten us about what that united pressure will amount to? How will it differ from the Government's strategy to date? What form will the different way forward take? My fear is the two Governments will continue to do what they have done since 1998, and that is to punish the democrats collectively with Sinn Fein for fear that those who threaten the democratic process with violence might slip out of the political loop. That is again a formula that has borne no fruit. It simply suggests that the two Governments have little faith in the political process in Northern Ireland. This is a message that has clearly not been lost on Sinn Fein/IRA.
	Tonight we are discussing the continuation of direct rule. That is fine, but there are some issues that we must consider as well. One is the failure of the cross-border bodies to be of any assistance to the general community in Northern Ireland. They simply act on behalf of the Irish Government. In effect, we have joint authority in the areas where there is cross-border activity.
	In the case of Waterways Ireland—which I have raised in this Chamber before—the post of director of marketing and communications was not filled by open competition and is not made amenable to the law of the United Kingdom, although the post is located in Enniskillen in County Fermanagh. This issue has been covered up time and again at the behest of the Dublin Government through the North/South Ministerial Council.
	I asked a Written Question recently about the employment law to which the posts of directors of Waterways Ireland are subject if they are based at the headquarters in County Fermanagh. I received the most unacceptable Answer, which stated:
	"Employment in the post of directors of Waterways Ireland is likely to be subject to the law of the United Kingdom".—[Official Report, 24/2/05; col. WA 218.]
	It is "likely" to be subject to the law of the United Kingdom.
	These posts are in a part of the United Kingdom, but there is no open competition for them, nor for promotion. A director of marketing and communications was appointed. Now, I have been in that industry for more than 30 years. I am one of two visiting professors of that subject in the United Kingdom. I was denied the right to apply for a job in Waterways Ireland. That is not the sort of legislation that we have in Northern Ireland. It is not the sort of legislation we want in Northern Ireland. We have legislation that covers open competition and allows for no discrimination in employment on any basis. Yet these practices, which may be acceptable in the Irish Republic, are now taking place as a result of the cross-border bodies.
	It has been covered up by the North/South Ministerial Council, which has wiped its hands clean of this appointment. Yet, for example, on 14 April 2003, it confirmed the appointment of the chief executive of the Ulster-Scots Agency. But I could find no such confirmation for the director of marketing and communications for Waterways Ireland, who was appointed from a shortlist of one, with no experience of waterways and very little experience of marketing and communications. He was, as I have told this House before, a fixer for Charlie Haughey in the Fianna Fail office in Dublin. Do we want that sort of southern Irish governance creeping into Northern Ireland, as we saw in the cross-border bodies? That is not what I signed up for.
	On the subject of cross-border bodies, I shall make a point about an activity that has gone on in Middletown, where it is proposed that there should be a centre for autistic children. I totally accept that it is required and, as I am dyslexic, I am very interested in extra teaching resources for disabled kids. But in Middletown, at the behest of the southern Government working through the North/South Ministerial Council, Her Majesty's Government have provided money to buy a convent and a chapel. Part of the area will be used for a special needs school and the convent and the chapel will be leased back to the church at a nominal rent. I am not against the convent, the chapel or schools for autistic children. But there must be a lot of public property in Northern Ireland that is not currently being used for education. What was the selection process for Middletown? What was the selection process for this cross-border body?
	It is time that we looked at these cross-border bodies, which should not exist without devolution. Tonight, we are discussing direct rule and we should be looking at these bodies, which should not exist with direct rule. I want to know why Her Majesty's Government bailed out a religious order in Middletown with government money, why they bought property that they did not need and are now seeking to let back to a church. None of this is what I voted for when I voted for the Belfast agreement.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Gangmasters Licensing Bill was introduced into this House last summer by my noble friend Lord Carter. It had received all-party support in this House and another place. It marked a significant step in the effort to curb the illegal and exploitative activities of some gangmasters in agriculture and related sectors. Some of the experiences and stories of what goes on in that rather murky part of the labour market are indeed horrendous. It was necessary for us to step in.
	The Act provides for a gangmasters licensing authority to be established. It covers labour providers operating in agriculture, shellfish gathering and associated processing and packaging sectors. Once the licensing arrangements are in place, it will be a criminal offence for a person to operate as a gangmaster without a licence or to enter into an arrangement with an unlicensed gangmaster.
	Throughout the process, from the beginning of Jim Sheridan's Private Members' Bill in another place, there has been considerable co-operation with key industrial stakeholders. In particular, the Bill was in part sponsored by the Transport and General Workers Union, who worked very closely with the National Farmers Union, the Fresh Produce Consortium, the Association of Labour Providers—which provides a positive front for the trade—and other elements within the food chain. Agriculture will always need a seasonal and irregular supply of labour. It is very important that that labour is provided on legal terms. We know that there have been far too many instances of breaches of a number of different rules, from immigration through to taxation and health and safety.
	When the Act was passed, we set ourselves the ambitious target of establishing the authority by 1 April this year, and we are on track to achieve that. The regulations before the House tonight relate only to the establishment of the authority, but further regulations will be required before licensing can start. Defra itself will be responsible for the Gangmasters (Exclusions) Regulations, which will be used to fine tune the scope of licensing by specifying the circumstances, such as where workers are loaned by one farmer to another or where there are established practices which do not raise the same kind of problems encountered as those where a gangmaster is used, in which a licence is not required. The background and drafts of those further regulations are now out for consultation.
	We shall also need the Gangmasters (Appeals) Regulations and, in the longer term, regulations to set out the "reasonable steps"—the exercise of due diligence—that an employer of such labour must take to satisfy himself that a gangmaster has a valid licence. Beyond that, the authority will be responsible for making orders setting out the licence conditions. We expect that the authority will make early progress on this as soon as it is legally established. If this is the case, we anticipate that gangmasters will be invited to apply for licences in the late autumn of this year.
	The regulations before the House today deal solely with the establishment of the authority. They set out the framework within which the authority will operate and give it its constitution and structure. They also deal with a few operational matters.
	I am aware that the major comment on these regulations has been about the unusually large size of the board which we are establishing to oversee the operation of the authority. The reason for the large size of the board at this stage is that it builds on the coalition that was so important in ensuring a wide consensus on this issue within the industry. The board includes 19 representatives from the stakeholder organisations specified in Schedule 1. They include trade unions, farmers, labour providers and retailers. That will help ensure that the authority starts up with a wide range of people who are fully informed on what will be required to make the new licensing system work, while ensuring that the system contributes to the prosperity of the agriculture and related sectors.
	Nine ex officio members of the board will be government officials drawn largely from the range of departments involved in enforcement. They will encompass a broad range of authorities dealing with immigration issues, the minimum wage, health and safety, taxation and Customs and Excise. Their presence will be needed to ensure a co-ordinated approach to compliance and enforcement activities and, even more important, to ensure that intelligence is shared between the different agencies. Representative and ex officio members will have the same voting rights and must act in the best interests of the authority at all times.
	We believe that a large board is necessary at the outset, but that this requirement may change over time. In view of this, we have decided that the structure and working of the board will be reviewed after three years. At that point we shall consider the size of the board, probably with a view to reducing it, and to reviewing the respective role of the board and the liaison groups required by the Act. At this stage, however, it is our view that the board needs to be of the size specified in the regulations.
	I hope that the House will approve these important regulations so that the authority can be set up and start work on addressing this very serious problem. I beg to move.
	Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 26 January be approved [7th Report from the Joint Committee and 9th Report from the Merits Committee].—(Lord Whitty.)

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing so fully these draft regulations. Before I comment any further, perhaps I may remind the House of my interest as president of Concordia, a charity which places thousands of young people and students in placements both in the UK and internationally. In the past the students have usually studied farming-related topics, which is why they seek to come here. However, these students are well recognised and are certainly not the kind of workers which these regulations seek to address. However, as the Minister pointed out, some gangmasters take their responsibilities very seriously and ensure that their employees are well looked after. I appreciate that the Act and these regulations in no way seek to do them down.
	We welcome this important step forward and we thank the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for bringing forward his Bill, which received our full support as it was taken through this House. In my opinion it addresses the longstanding problem of rogue gangmasters who misbehave in relation to their workers. Noble Lords on all sides of the House have expressed their abhorrence of those practices.
	Having said that, I want to put on the record a reflection of what the Minister has already indicated. Farming in general, and horticultural businesses in particular, could not operate successfully without employing seasonal workers. Given that the season is being extended at both ends of the year, the working period is now much longer. Our task is to ensure that everyone employed is dealt with in a fair and responsible manner. There is no disagreement between us on that.
	The Minister rightly referred to the Merits Committee, which drew the House's attention to the regulations. Its main focus was the number of board members—some 28—to which the Minister has referred.
	Perhaps in the first instance that is not a bad thing. We need to have a good understanding between unions and employers, and crucially, the nine officials and departments that enforce the regulations—or who have done so in the past.
	In another place further questions were raised that were not answered fully, so perhaps the Minister can clarify the position tonight. I am sure that he will agree that consensus is much better than confrontation. Will he confirm that a further review of the numbers of board members will be undertaken? I think that a suggestion of three years was made. Will the Minister say whether the Government accepted that the number of board members would be reviewed after three years?
	Under regulation 8(2), to be quorate the board must have,
	"at least one half of the representative members",
	plus the chairman or his deputy. I have worked that out at 11 persons in total. However, regulation 8(3) allows that quorum to be reduced to only five persons. I wonder why. It is not clear whether that would be for one meeting only or for all meetings thereafter. Will the Minister clarify the position?
	On Monday my honourable friend Michael Jack asked the Minister what would happen if someone had breached the law as an employment gangmaster but subsequently decided to go "legit"—that sounds strange for me to be saying—and made an application to the new authority. What would be his position? In other words, would someone who was considered not to be of a suitable standard be barred? If he wished to fall in with the new standards would he be considered as a suitable gangmaster in the future?
	In response, Alun Michael said that the board would have to consider that, but I wonder whether it is our responsibility to clarify that issue rather than leaving it to the board. I am not sure whether that falls within the scope of the statutory instrument.
	Another matter that was not clarified was whether non-registered UK companies are covered by the same regulations. In other words, if someone from outside wants to become a gangmaster but he is not registered here, will he have to conform in the same way?
	Will the Minister also say whether the new body will be required to carry out a criminal records bureau check on those who apply for licences? How will it go about its job?
	What about the anticipated cost of financing the agency? I understand that in setting it up, Defra will bear the costs. But we have not been told what those are, or whether the fees will cover the long-term costs of running the agency.
	Lastly, will the Minister comment on an issue raised by my honourable friend Owen Paterson who said that currently there are about 14 existing pieces of legislation that were relevant to gangmasters which, had they been enforced properly, could have prevented the horrors of Morecambe Bay. Once the agency is established, will those people's roles be redundant, or will they continue alongside the new agency? Their role is not quite clear, and I should be grateful for clarification.
	Having said that, we welcome regulations that were supported by colleagues in the other place—anything to raise the standards required of UK employers, especially for those who come from overseas. They are long overdue and we support them.

Lord Greaves: My Lords, we on the Liberal Democrat Benches welcome the regulations, which are a necessary step towards introducing the new regime set out in the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, I thank the Minister for explaining in his usual cogent way what the regulations mean.  I also thank the noble Baroness for asking one or two of the questions that I would have asked, but will now not do so because they are superfluous.
	I was slightly fascinated by the interest expressed by the noble Baroness in whether criminal gangmasters can reform themselves and become licensed under the new system. It is very pleasing that the Conservatives are interested in the matter of reform and restitution of criminals. It is an interesting matter and we look forward to the answer.
	Most comment during the consultation on the regulations related to the size and structure of the proposed authority, the number of members and so on. Like the noble Baroness, we are content to go along with what the Government propose and see how it works. I understand why they propose a large board and why they want the different parts of the system to be represented, but I am not sure that we should use the phrase "key stakeholders", which appears to be a clumsy New Labour kind of phrase. I do not like it but I think we understand what the Minister means by it.
	In many ways, the word "gangmasters" is unfortunate because it suggests that everyone is tarred with the same brush. Clearly that is not the case. We are talking about labour providers or employment agencies, or whatever they might be, that provide a very necessary service in certain industries. Many industries in this country could not exist without flexible, seasonal labour. Agriculture and the food preparation industry are perhaps the most important or the leading examples. I wonder what gangmistresses might be like, but perhaps we should not go into that.
	The last question posed by the noble Baroness goes to the nub of the matter. That referred not to what is in these regulations but to how the system will work in future. We all know that throughout industry and throughout the world of employment in this country there are a large number of practices which sometimes are illegal or sometimes rather dubious and there are many people working for less than the national minimum wage, more hours than they should and so on. If these powers would have dealt with the tragedy that occurred in Morecambe Bay, will the situation in future be any better? Will licensing such people and organisations make any difference to inspection, monitoring, policing and enforcement?
	We do not know the answers to those questions yet. The existence of a licensing system that provides people with an official status should help, but it will not be the whole answer. There is a question mark over whether this will work properly. We all hope that it will and we hope that it will contribute to a much better, fairer and less exploitative system than exists far too often now.
	My final point is that if this works and if it is a success, it may be a model for other industries where the same kind of provision of labour takes place. So it is very important that it works. We fully support the regulations and offer the Government our best wishes in implementing them. We shall have more debates in the future about the outcome.

Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, there was a case in the press in just the past two or three weeks in which workers were picking flowers for Marks and Spencer, under a gangmaster, for net pay of 52 pence an hour. The report says that Marks and Spencer was shocked by the report and will be carrying out its own investigation, but it shows that there is a big issue of exploitation which we have to address.
	I have a couple of questions. First, as and when gangmasters are registered, what will be the procedure for ensuring that some gangmasters cannot slip through the net—that is, remain unregistered?
	Secondly, the Explanatory Notes say that the gangmaster has to demonstrate to the licensing authority,
	"that his business is complying with . . . employment law (including immigration and taxation legislation)".
	How will that translate into ensuring clarity for people as regards their rights and responsibilities both as employers and as workers?
	Thirdly, can cases be referred to the licensing authority, or will the licensing authority simply be left to carry out inspections of the licensed as it considers necessary?
	Fourthly, on the Inland Revenue front, will the board be able to evaluate, for example, a gangmaster's contention that the worker has freely entered into an agreement whereby the employer may make a range of reductions? I understand that the Inland Revenue polices the whole range of pay-packet deductions.
	The last point—which is rather quickly creeping up the agenda; it has been touched on—is the whole European Union context in which this is happening. Is there not now a stronger case that, in such matters, we should have regulations on which we can all agree? All the stakeholders and political parties in Britain agree that such regulations are necessary to ensure decent minimum standards. We do not want to discover that a coach and horses has unintentionally been driven through Parliament's intention in these regulations because a gangmaster is licensed—or not licensed—outside the United Kingdom, elsewhere in the EU.
	There is a strong case here. I know that my noble friend the Minister will not be able to give a definitive answer this evening, but I put these points down for consideration because of the continuing discussions in Brussels on what I believe are two related sets of directives. Is there, first, not a strong case for getting on with a Europe-wide set of rights for contract workers? That has been on the table for some time. And how is that complementary to the debate currently under way on the services directive?
	Clearly, there has to be some compatibility so that the left hand and the right hand are saying the same thing. There cannot suddenly be a regulation from the services directive on freedom to register anywhere. Whatever the ambiguity, we know that people will not be able to say, "I have a company in Poland, with workers on the Polish wage rate. I can bring those workers here to work for Polish wages". I take Poland as an illustration only because it is the biggest country to have recently joined the EU.
	But there is a large grey area. Can people escape the need to register simply by saying, "I am registered in Poland"—or wherever—because there is no requirement which bites on the need for a registration equivalent to that required under the statutory instrument and its implementation in Britain? We shall have to discover quite quickly whether there is an EU-compatible system for the rules on contract workers and the rules on freedom of registration of services under the services directive.
	I congratulate the Government on getting on with this legislation. As both other speakers have said, it covers a wider field, in one sense, than gangmasters as we might all have seen them— Morecambe Bay, and so on. Nevertheless, this authority is an important development. The fact that not only all the stakeholders but, interestingly, the Inland Revenue and the immigration authorities will be involved, augurs well for getting a real grip on these complex developments. I wish them well in implementing the regulations.

Lord Chan: My Lords, I add my congratulations to the Government and to the Minister producing these regulations. In this regard, will the news of these regulations be sent to all embassies, given that the impetus for their introduction came from the tragedy in Morecambe Bay, which affected people from overseas? Will that be possible? Will the regulations also help to regulate in a better way the people who attempt to come here illegally?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am thankful for the support for these regulations, for the principle of the Act and the establishment of the authority that has been shown on all sides of the House. That consensus is appreciated—indeed, it is necessary to make the Act work—and reflects the view of all respectable elements within the industry.
	There have been a number of questions and I shall try to answer the bulk of them. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, and the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, asked whether the size of the authority will be reviewed after three years. Yes, it will. My presumption at this point is that we will look at reducing its size but the review will obviously consider all options for the structure of the board. Certainly the arguments for having a large board at the beginning are, to my mind, compelling. They will become less compelling if the board is working effectively as we go down the line.
	The point made by the noble Baroness about a quorum is slightly complicated. The quorum is described with a reference to five people—the minimum required to propose a motion to change the quorum requirements. You would need five people to propose a motion to change the quorum requirements, but then half the board—or half of those present, under the old quorum arrangements—would have to vote for it. Thus you could, in certain circumstances, reduce the quorum on a temporary basis. I hope I have got that right; if not, I shall write to the noble Baroness.
	The noble Baroness asked whether people who had previously operated somewhat dubiously could obtain a licence. Clearly, the authority will have to take a view on exactly what it takes into account. However, the requirements for the licence will be on behaviour from the point of having the licence. The sanction applies to behaviour after that, but there could be information which may make the board reluctant to give a licence initially. To some extent the authority, once established, will have to deal with that on a case-by-case basis. Certainly we hope that a number of operators, having operated at the fringe—in some senses, having been obliged to, because there were worse people undercutting them outside—will take advantage of the licensing system. The work that we intend to set up with the Association of Labour Providers—to put the enterprises of gangmasters and labour providers within a more businesslike operation, with proper information and legal requirements—would help them to operate as legitimate and legal labour providers thereafter.
	The noble Baroness also asked about funding. Its basis is that, once operational, the authority will be self-financing through its licence fee income. Defra will meet initial start-up costs for the authority and cover any shortfall in revenue. The authority would be required to account for its use of funds, but we would also underwrite any shortfall in licence fee income. There will be significant expenditure—both in money and in kind—in setting up the authority. Some of that, largely in kind, will be provided by other departments besides Defra—because we will need their expertise to set it up.
	On the issue about gangmasters not being registered, anyone who is a gangmaster/labour provider would be required to register under the Act—whatever their legal status. Therefore the provisions would apply to a person acting as a gangmaster in the UK, in relation to the work that the Act covers. It would mean an overseas gangmaster, if supplying or using workers in the UK, would have to have one of these licences. The slight complication raised by my noble friend Lord Lea is that, on certain readings of the proposals under the services directive, establishment in one country would count against another. We are in the early stages of discussing that directive. While it is clearly highly desirable—for single market purposes—to have the principles of that directive established, I do not believe it is the intention of the Commission, or of others supporting that directive, including the other measures of the UK Government, to see that effect. I suspect it will be redrafted—and clearly could, as my noble friend Lord Lea says, be related to other proposals from the Commission relating to the rights of contract workers. That would be a form of indirect enforcement.
	The authority will also have to decide how it operates in other ways—whether, for example, they would in particular cases want to have reference to criminal records. The Act itself does, of course, allow access to all the information that is relevant—whichever public authority may be holding it, subject to certain provisos. If things need to be checked with the tax, police or immigration authorities then there can be cross-referencing. That was an important provision in the Act; on the enforcement side, probably the most important to make it work.
	In response again to my noble friend Lord Lea, the authority will, of course, be able to check deductions from pay and be able to interview workers to help to establish how deductions were made. If those do not conform with the minimum wage requirements, they would obviously have to be taken into account in whether a sanction would need to be taken against that gangmaster.
	The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, basically asked the big question: will it work? I believe that it will, but it will take a lot of effort from a lot of people, not just those on the Gangmasters Licensing Authority, its staff and its enforcers but those from a wide range of other enforcement agencies which will continue to do their job.
	As I said in relation to access to records, the co-ordination between authorities and the sharing of intelligence is one vital means of getting the scheme to work. The other is enforcement through the food chain. My noble friend Lord Lea referred to Marks & Spencer. If Marks & Spencer knew which gangmasters were licensed and which were not, they would require their suppliers to use only licensed gangmaster labour. Therefore, the pressure from the top of the food chain down, to ensure that producers all the way down the line use only licensed gangmaster labour, is probably the biggest single enforcement, far greater than any individual enforcement through other regulations. The food chain's commitment to this, including the commitment of the retailers—to answer the question of my noble friend Lord Grantchester—is very important in making the scheme work. I assure him that the retailers have shown a very strong commitment to including this within their requirements on purchasing once it becomes law. In some cases, they are already setting up assurance schemes which relate to the ethical trading initiative which was a precursor to the establishment of this scheme and will run in parallel with it.
	My noble friend Lord Lea also asked how to avoid having people slip through the net. One of the most effective ways is through food chain pressure. Again, that will be met by the combination of shared intelligence, shared enforcement and the pressure down the food chain. It is also important that both employees and users of casual labour know what their responsibilities and rights are—and, in particular, that farmers do. To answer my noble friend Lord Grantchester, farmers will have to know what is required of them in checking whether the labour coming to pick their fruit or flowers is supplied by a registered gangmaster. It needs to be very clear and simple to establish what they need to see and where they can raise queries and receive a quick answer. As the labour is frequently required for only a day or two, and very rarely for more than a few weeks, we need an instant way of checking whether that labour is supplied by a genuine and registered gangmaster.
	My noble friend Lord Grantchester also asked when the licences were likely to be issued. If everything goes according to plan, it will take some time to set up the licensing scheme. If the authority is established from April this year, as intended, the scheme would not be up and running before the spring of next year. It is not an instant solution and requires all the various elements I have described to be in place by then to change the situation. What I think will help will be the anticipation of this measure and the offer we are making to labour providers and gangmasters to help them into the system when the licensing authority is established.
	The noble Lord, Lord Chan, raised the point of whether to let nationals coming into the country know what their rights are. I certainly take the point that we should inform the embassies of those countries from which a lot of the labour is supplied. One of the main abuses has been the use of illegal labour. People whose immigration or work status is illegal have been easily exploited because of their situation. Once there is a requirement for gangmasters to be registered and to have records of whom they employ, this becomes much more difficult. We can establish much more effectively instant checks on the legal status of the workers concerned.
	If I have missed any questions, I will write to noble Lords.

Lord Greaves: My Lords, the noble Baroness does the House a favour by raising this matter, bringing to the attention of the Minister the comments of the Merits Committee, particularly in relation to dairy farmers, and providing him with an opportunity to explain how he thinks the regulations will work.
	As the noble Baroness said, these regulations are part of a wider group of regulations relating to the introduction of single farm payments. As the Minister will know, the Liberal Democrats have broadly supported the Government's general thrust in the way in which it is introducing single farm payments in this country and the way in which it is being implemented. Along with many people, we feel that the crunch will come when we see how cross-compliance will work and whether it will work as successfully as we want. It is at the heart of the change: putting money not just into producing things, but into other public benefits.
	As the committee and the briefings pointed out, the dairy industry has serious concerns, particularly about small and medium-sized dairy farms that will be faced with a situation that they have never had before. Can the Minister explain how set-aside will work on a fairly small upland dairy farm where most of the land, as the noble Baroness said, is, to a layman, used for growing grass? That is what we used to call "permanent pasture" but nowadays it is pasture that is regularly scraped off and resown. It is not quite as permanent as it used to be, but it is basically pasture.
	The maintenance regime for those fields very often depends on grazing by dairy cattle. A lot of people say that dairy farms are not terribly environmentally friendly, but that is the way in which the fields are kept in good conditions and in which the land is managed. I do not understand how set-aside applies to land such as that. On an arable farm, set-aside is fairly easy. Crops are not grown on the land, which can be managed in a fairly light way during the year to keep weeds down and so on, and at the end of that period it is put back into use. But if you have grassland which is not being properly managed, all kinds of weeds—thistles, docks and that dreadful ragwort stuff, and so on—will start to grow.
	What are farmers supposed to do to manage these fields which are set aside? Are they expected to mow them, in which case they will have a crop of hay or silage? How does that satisfy set-aside? These are things I do not understand. Perhaps other people do and perhaps the Minister can explain them to me.
	These regulations are necessary because set-aside is part of the common agricultural policy, as we know. I hope that the Government are moving towards a regime in which, if set-aside has to continue, land is not set aside simply not to produce things on it, but for positive environmental reasons. That is absolutely crucial. The whole concept of set-aside, as we have known it, does not have general public support. People think it is stupid to pay people for not growing things on land. They have a great deal of justification for feeling that.
	In the longer run we must move either to a system in which set-aside means something quite different—where it means something positive and not something negative—or, alternatively, move towards a situation where set-aside is not longer part of the regime.
	If you have a regime based on production subsidies, then set-aside has a logic to it. If you have a regime based on whole farm payments with lots of environmental and social benefits built into the results of those payments, set-aside begins to lose its logic completely. Really, we should be moving towards a regime in which set-aside is abolished.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for his response to my Motion, and to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, and my noble friend the Duke of Montrose for their questions. The cross-compliance regulations that are evolving create challenges. The noble Lord said that they would not affect many people; I think that they will affect a few more than he thinks.
	The question of temporary pasture is outstanding and, as the noble Lord said, there are still more outstanding matters. The one thing that the Minister is aware of is the difficulty of planning the best way for the future so that we get a balance between the regulations being laid down and better environmental circumstances, which we would all like to see. That has added to the uncertainty.
	I am grateful to the Minister for answering some of my questions. He did not refer to the two issues that I raised on bovine TB. I am sorry that he felt unable to comment on that today because it is a very big issue. It is relevant because it creates huge problems for dairy farmers. I am not surprised that he did respond to my point about things being changed overnight. I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the matter because it is important. If regulations are to be changed overnight, and nobody knows about them, including the department, how on Earth are practitioners who are trying to keep within the law to know what is expected of them? I gave just one example that hit the headlines yesterday. I hope that the Minister will take up my invitation to make a statement to clarify the matter tomorrow, because we are uncertain whether there has been a change, and, if there has been a change, what it involves.
	I am very grateful, as always, to the Minister, who is extremely knowledgeable and addresses all our concerns in a very genuine manner. I thank other noble Lords who have spoken. I do not regret raising this subject, because it has given us the chance to clarify some of the issues that have been raised. At this stage I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. I propose to speak to both this Motion and the second Motion standing in my name.
	I am aware that this House only very rarely divides on Prayers to Annul, and to that end they do not necessarily imply that the individual making the Prayer is opposed to the policy contained in the order. Rather they are hooks upon which to hang a debate about a particular issue—the more so here because, given that the trawling orders are negative, they would not normally be debated. In that sense, opportunities to question the Government about their policies on the issue are few and far between. This Prayer offers me and your Lordships the chance of seeking clarification of the Government's intention on a most important issue.
	I have to thank the Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee, which, in its eighth report, alerted me and your Lordships' House to the danger in the two orders. It states:
	"These orders are drawn to the special attention of the House on the grounds that they give rise to issues of public policy likely to be of interest to the House, and that they may imperfectly achieve their policy objectives".
	That policy objective, to which I can hardly object, is based on the Conservative Party's fishing Green Paper, which sets out our oft-stated policy of managing the sea fisheries in UK waters in such a manner as to safeguard the natural environment, rebuild our fish stocks and marine wildlife.
	So, in principle, I support the idea of reducing pair trawling for bass and the huge level of by-catch of common dolphins. The orders will penalise the UK's south-west fisheries while our partners in the CFP fish on. It is the other fishing partners who are causing the real damage outside our territorial waters, particularly the French effort in the Channel. The French effort, which is so huge and so damaging, is really where the problem lies. Ours is a small effort in comparison.
	I will quote from the Merits Committee's report because it will make me succinct and my voice is not doing too well tonight. Paragraph 6 refers to,
	"the option recommended, namely to take action on a UK basis, and then approach the European Commission to make the prohibition . . . DEFRA notes that in July 2004 it put the case to the Commission for the use of emergency powers for the closure the offshore pair trawl fishery for bass, and that the Commission did not accept this case. At paragraph 18, DEFRA states that, if the Commission is not persuaded by a new approach to agree that the prohibition be extended to other Member states, DEFRA 'would continue with the introduction of measures to apply to UK vessels only'".
	Well, whacko. What fun. It may be fun for the officials, and fun even for the Ministers, but it is our fishermen's lives and our fishermen's livelihoods with which the Government are playing politics. The report continues:
	"Paragraph 29 of the RIA summarises the results of a consultation process on the proposals, which was carried out over a three-week period in October and November 2004. It makes it clear that a number of objections have been raised to the action being pursued by DEFRA, including that 'many stakeholders are concerned that these measures are discriminatory as French and offshore fishery will continue where most cetacean bycatch is seen'.
	We understand the importance of safeguarding the marine environment, including protecting dolphins against the damage caused by bycatch".
	Hear, hear. So do we all.
	The report continues:
	"However, we question whether the policy being pursued by DEFRA through this Order will be effective in securing such protection since, as the RIA indicates, overall bycatch levels from the French fishery effort may well be higher than levels resulting from the UK element; and since there is a clear possibility that the Commission may not agree that the prohibition effected by the Order should be extended to other Member States".
	Where are we then? The report concludes:
	"We question again whether DEFRA's decision in the case of the 2004 Order, to proceed with a national prohibition before agreement at the European level, is an effective approach".
	I remind your Lordships' House—I do so because I know that it will go into Hansard and be read outside the group that is here tonight—that this relatively new committee is a cross-party committee and that it has reached that conclusion jointly.
	So while the French go laughing all the way home to the bank, our British fishermen stand by while the Government play politics with their lives and their livelihoods. The resentment that is building in the home fleet can be measured only by how I am approached when I go home. This is where I admit that, yes, this is close to my heart. This is my home fishery, my friends and family. It is very tough to be a pawn in this game.
	I ask the Government to clarify some of the details in this order and to try to explain their thinking to me. What are the implications of the Government taking this unilateral action for the fisheries of the United Kingdom? What is the Minister's estimation of our European partners following suit? Is it worth sacrificing our own fleet to an ideal not shared by our partners in Europe?
	Moved to resolve, That this House calls on Her Majesty's Government to revoke the order laid before the House on 23 December 2004 (SI 2004/3397). [8th Report from the Merits Committee].—(Baroness Wilcox.)

Lord Greaves: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, is right to bring this matter to the attention of the House, although I do not agree with a lot of what she has said in moving her Motion. However, our debate tonight has demonstrated that the Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee is proving to be useful in scrutinising delegated legislation that previously was not adequately examined. The reports of the committee do not use very often the phrase set out here:
	"These orders are drawn to the special attention of the House",
	very often. When they do, Members of this House are obliged to ensure that the concerns outlined are raised on the Floor of the House and Ministers are asked to account for their actions. The committee has proved very useful and its reports are valuable.
	We must consider two issues which stand at opposite ends of the argument about what should be done. The first is the substantive issue: many dolphins are killed each year as a result of pair trawling using very large pelagic nets. The number of dolphins being washed up in nets or found dead on beaches is a matter of great public concern. There is no doubt about that and the Government are right to look to see what they can do about it.
	In passing, I also compliment those responsible for producing the regulatory impact assessment on this matter. It is a model of its kind in explaining complicated matters both clearly and simply. We are now all experts in Article 7 of Council Resolution 2371/2002 and Article 9 of the same. I am sure that the Minister carries such details in his head, but most of us have to rely on assessments like this one, which is very good indeed.
	It is suggested that during the 2003–04 season, the number of dolphins killed as a result of this kind of trawl fishing was 439. That is a precise number and therefore probably not quite accurate. hat is United Kingdom boats—we are told that there are perhaps seven pairs. The French have perhaps five times as many as we do, so the true total might be more than 2,500, including the French and UK boats. It is a significant slaughter of intelligent creatures, which we must take very seriously.
	The second issue is whether the Government have tackled the problem in the right way, which is the issue that the noble Baroness raised. The Government have been under considerable pressure from organisations such as the World Wildlife Fund, the Wildlife Trusts, Greenpeace, and so on, as well as public opinion. My honourable friend Andrew George, who is the Member of Parliament for the far end of the south-west in St. Ives, and our fisheries spokesman, has put pressure on the Government to do something about the problem.
	His advice is that banning that activity is not a disaster for fishing in the south-west. A good living can be secured, as it is in Cornwall, by using a line and hook to catch deep sea bass. The resulting product is much higher quality and much more marketable than fish that have been damaged in a trawl net. I am no expert but I am willing to take Andrew George's advice on that matter.
	The Government are caught in a difficult situation. They tried, quite rightly, to get a European-wide ruling under Article 7 but failed to do so. They are now going under Article 9 and making a limited attempt to do something about it. It is a limited attempt because it covers only British boats and only 12 miles, whereas a lot of such fishing takes place well beyond 12 miles. The Government can then ask the European Commission if the action that has been taken can apply to other boats, especially French ones.
	That is the only course of action now open to the Government. It may be successful or it may make little difference. The Government should be complimented on trying to do something about the problem. It may be that introducing the order the day after it was published and making it the day after Parliament rose was undesirable. Clearly that is undesirable. The noble Baroness asked the reasons for that.
	I suspect that it is a cock-up rather than a conspiracy, and that the Government were not organised enough to do it properly and make the order earlier in anticipation of what would result from the consultation. Had they done so, they would have been accused of bouncing the consultation before the period had finished. You cannot win on such things.
	In the circumstances the Government are in a difficult position. They are trying to do their best to deal with a real problem that must be tackled. In the unlikely event that the noble Baroness pushes the matter to a vote, I shall not support her.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for bringing forward this very important issue. Had she not done so, I would have done so myself. With her great expertise and knowledge of this topic I am doubly grateful. I am even more grateful as for the past two weeks she has been very unwell, and she has nearly lost her voice. We are very pleased to see her in her place, although I am not so sure that the Minister will be so thrilled with her moving the Motion.
	Noble Lords have raised some important and interesting issues and I await the Minister's response. I go back to the Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee report, which says that,
	"these orders are drawn to the special attention of the House on the grounds that they give rise to issues of public policy"—
	I should like the Minister to comment on that—
	"likely to be of interest to the House, and that they may imperfectly achieve their policy objectives".
	Again, I should like the Minister to comment on that. s with the earlier orders, it is very easy for the Minister to respond in a general way and not to address the issues that are directly before us.
	My noble friend quite rightly raises the issue of pair trawling. We would like to see it banned. Our party has certainly been pushing for this issue to be addressed. As my noble friend Lord Ullswater clearly stated, this is not a new problem. We have known about it for some time. The common fisheries policy has been highlighted in report after report. The great sadness is that no action has followed.
	The Government are taking this step, and we support anything that will lessen the loss of so many wonderful and beautiful dolphins and porpoise. Greenpeace estimate that each year something like 10,000 of those wonderful beasts are killed unnecessarily. It is not a narrow issue; huge numbers are being killed.
	I want to reiterate one or two points. I shall not go through each section of the report to which my noble friend Lady Wilcox referred. She has put the points very clearly, and although I had highlighted them, I shall leave the matter there.
	As the noble Lord knows, Greenpeace has already launched a challenge in the High Court against the Government to save dolphins being caught. Greenpeace has filed papers that seek a ban on all fishing boats pair trawling for sea bass within 200 miles of the UK. That is the type of fishing which is responsible for more than 2,000 dolphins dying in the Channel every annual fishing season, and those are just the numbers in our area.
	On the timing mentioned by my noble friend Lord Ullswater, I too had raised the issue of the sudden desire to bring forward a statutory instrument when the House was not sitting. It was introduced on 22 December, brought forward on 23 December and came into being in a very short space of time. I have to ask why. Why, when this problem has been known for so long, was it decided to push it through, like any bad news from this Government, when it is hoped that the House will not notice. I am sure that that is not true of the Minister, but it leaves a nasty taste in the mouth. I believe that the Minister must answer that question very clearly today. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said that he thought that was not intentional. Bad organisation, or whatever, is undesirable and I believe that that point should be answered tonight.
	My noble friend clearly said that the Commission was not persuaded of the need to address the issue. What action has the Minister taken since it was turned down, and what action does he believe will be achieved at the end of the day? Is he willing to accept that it will have a detrimental effect on UK fishermen? In my view, it certainly will.
	I want to draw to the Minister's attention the enormous amount of work undertaken by my honourable friend Owen Paterson in recent months on our fisheries policy. He is very concerned and supportive of the stance that we are taking tonight and he, too, wants answers to this imperfect way of trying to achieve policy objectives. We, the Conservative Party, support the idea of reducing pair trawling, which we would like to see banned for environmental reasons, for the benefit of both recreational and commercial fishing, particularly as regards bass, which is predominantly fished by using rods and lines. We respect the value and importance of bass and believe that it is a waste of a resource for it to be fished by pair trawling.
	The problem with these regulations is that British boats are not really the problem. It is, as other noble Lords have said, the French boats that are causing more damage, but this statutory instrument does not address that at all. Again, I would like to know from the Minister what negotiations he or his department have had directly with their French counterparts. If the problem predominantly lies with them, then surely there should have been some discussions.
	In 2003, the Royal Society said that European Union politicians were gambling with the health of the remaining European fish stocks, and that it was an outrage. I reiterate that.
	We have spoken on many occasions about the state of the fishing industry and of our fish. Will the Minister comment on why the Government decided not to bring in a marine Bill, but instead to pursue a hunting Bill? One would have saved and protected animal welfare, albeit fishing, whereas the other certainly does not protect any animal welfare. A marine Bill was welcomed and supported on all sides of the House. It would have addressed this very issue.
	I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Wilcox for so clearly identifying the issues before us tonight. I hope that the Minister will answer these direct questions and not say that he will write to us later. There has been enough notice. I hope that he is able to answer. My thanks to my noble friend; she has brought an important issue before us tonight.